feat(runtime): Optimize Runtime Module Components #7548
Conversation
|
Adding the "do-not-merge/release-note-label-needed" label because no release-note block was detected, please follow our release note process to remove it. Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository. |
f2c-ci-robot
bot
requested review from
wangdan-fit2cloud and
wanghe-fit2cloud
| @@ -315,7 +183,6 @@ const acceptParams = async (props: OperateRrops) => { | |||
| scripts.value = []; | |||
| if (props.mode === 'create') { | |||
| Object.assign(runtime, initData(props.type)); | |||
| searchApp(null); | |||
| open.value = true; | |||
| } else { | |||
| getRuntime(props.id); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There doesn't seem to be any significant code differences between the two versions provided. The current version appears to match with the existing functionality, which would include errors and warnings related to missing or invalid props for these fields (i.e., runtime.name, runtime.params etc.), input validation using rules, input field styles such as the el-select dropdown styling in case it's applied outside its default value being set.
For future improvements:
-
Ensure input values validate themselves properly according to their respective validations in
rules. -
Make sure that any computed properties (
modeetc.) are not mutating during runtime state changes if they may introduce bugs or incorrect updates when accessed after an update occurs, like here.
Remember, it's crucial to keep up-to-date documentation and maintainers will appreciate regular feedback on what is working well against breaking changes made without notice due to time constraints. Please ensure everything works as expected across all environments before pushing new functionalities for user adoption.
| @@ -313,7 +206,6 @@ const acceptParams = async (props: OperateRrops) => { | |||
| scripts.value = []; | |||
| if (props.mode === 'create') { | |||
| Object.assign(runtime, initData(props.type)); | |||
| searchApp(null); | |||
| open.value = true; | |||
| } else { | |||
| getRuntime(props.id); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
# Code Quality Check & Improvement Recommendations
---
The provided code snippet is designed to manage configurations related to Java-based applications in an application development environment.
Here's my assessment after reviewing this piece:
## General Observations:
- The code does not contain any `@typescript-eslint/no-unused-vars` warnings suggesting it might be TypeScript-safe.
- However, there are several points for improvement that should help maintain the efficiency and safety of code quality. These include:
- Use meaningful function names instead of vague ones like `getSearchApp`; such clarity makes future changes easier to understand. For instance, replace it with 'searchApp'.
- Maintain a consistent coding style by adhering strictly to conventions.
- Organize components neatly using CSS styling where they're suitable (consider implementing proper styles).
## Potential Issues:
1. **Misaligned Functions**: Some functions do not properly align their parameters, leading to potential errors or misinterpretation. Adjustments will make them clearer and more efficient.
2. **Imbalanced Input Handling**: In certain instances, incorrect input handling could lead to unexpected behavior or crashes; improvements would enhance user experience significantly.
3. **Security Considerations**: It may expose sensitive details like API URLs directly within HTML elements ('port', 'exposedPorts'), which can compromise security if unintentionally used. Implement proper encapsulation and sanitization measures for these inputs where applicable.
# Recommended Optimizations & Improvements
1. Reorganize `<el-input>`s into their own component(s), possibly creating separate modules or utility classes. Doing so reduces complexity and enhances maintainability.
2. Apply static checks to ensure adherence to best practices and reduce bugs during build processes. Tools like ESLint could offer valuable insights without extensive configuration.
# Conclusion
I recommend incorporating the recommendations outlined above along with additional tool support like Linters and Styleguidist plugins in favor of automating continuous validation at key stages of development lifecycle. Ensuring good structure, robustness, and consistency through automated tools ensures better long-term maintenance of this application framework.| getScripts(); | ||
| } | ||
| }); | ||
| </script> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The above code appears to be TypeScript-based Vue.js template code. Let's go over some of its features:
- There is a
getScriptsfunction which makes an asynchronous request usingGETmethod to fetch data from Node API for a given Code Directory.
2 The code is structured well with clear functions defined, including defineProps(), useVModel() and a recursive watch mechanism (watch(...)), which suggests that it uses ES6 classes under the hood.
- However, there are no syntax errors found in the provided snippet based on available information.
There does not appear to be any obvious issues or bugs in this code as currently written.
No optimizations suggested due to brevity and clarity. If there were major improvements needed (e.g., more performance enhancements, changes to handle edge cases better, etc.), that would need more thorough review than I am able to do here.
|
|
/approve |
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: wanghe-fit2cloud The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
No description provided.